But I will say that the New York sequence really stands out to me because for Charlize Theron's character to remotely control a thousand vehicles from a billion-dollar jet above Manhattan, weaponize these cars, and have them flying out buildings and using them as vehicular torpedoes — that was very creative and original and timely.

It's the "timely" that makes that quote. Any other timely things going on?

I'm curious about the humptiness of neoliberalism. I'm not aware of significantly shifting definitions. Maybe I just read too much MMT stuff, because bobbyp poisoned my brain, so I tend to think of the fairly consistent definition I'm used to.

but the innumerable hordes of people who have been shouting it in comment sections for the past year use it as a catch-all for anyone they disagree with.

How many political categories aren't like that? Granted, you may see a particular set of categories used that way, depending on where you spend your time on the intertubes, but all of them get tossed about whimsically somewhere or other.

in any case, "neoliberalism" is a dead word out here in the non-academic world. unless the speaker/writer who uses it includes a footnote to explain which definition is being used, i just assume the common definition: "nasty not-left-enough pseudo-liberal".

I have always associated neoliberalism as used in the US with Tom Friedman in the 1990's. Friedman bestrode the pundit world like a colossus in those days. Even in the 00's or the early tens I remember Obama at one time taking him seriously or pretending to. Smart Democrats realized that the financial markets reflected the collective wisdom of crowds, markets in general were great, education and training were the way to compete successfully in the global marketplace, unions were dying and good riddance, the problem with Western Europe were their sclerotic regulations and lack of dynamism, meaning they couldn't fire people very easily. Remember the Golden Straitjacket? Friedman's term. He meant that governments had to bow down to the wisdom of the financial markets.

And gets fired for his sexual behavior! Since when do the Fox News types care about that??? (Except as a club to beat Democrats with, of course. But they don't historically care about it when their own do it, unless it reaches the point of child pornography put up on a screen in the mall.)

My mother was a fan of Thomas Friedman and I didn't fight with her about him until he wrote "Crazier than Thou," his screed supporting W. That was the final straw for me, and I may have convinced her, although I'm not sure.

They're in the middle of trying to buy the rest of Sky (cable News, channels etc in the UK) of which they already own a sizeable chunk but not a controlling interest. They tried some years ago, and were probably on the way to getting it, when the whole scandal of their journalists' hacking the phones of various celebrities', murder victims' families etc broke badly, and they closed one of their newspapers and withdrew their bid for Sky. It was a wise move, they were for a while there Public Enemies (had been for many of us anyway, but at that moment it would have been embarrassing for the government to OK their bid). Anyway, that's all pretty much died down now, so they are trying again for Sky. It has been referred to the Media Regulator to see if a) it gives him too much power in the UK media and b) whether he/they are fit people to be approved. I imagine that Bill O'R is a casualty of all this, because on the fit and proper calculation it would have harmed them. On the other hand, or possibly in addition, it's possible the culture over at Fox is changing (albeit glacially slowly) because of the influence of the sons.

Yes, I would agree a lot of us prols may not use the term "neolibralism" in a strictly academic or logical way (you know, just like Trump or Sanders voters). We are simply at the whims of our uncontrolled emotions.

But, I can only assume the words "socialist", "anarchist", "communist", or heaven forbid, "Democrat" will never pass your lips again.

As for HSH, I am truly sorry, but I think the MMT'ers have a great frame that can connect with a lot of regular folks :)

bobby (I assume the same as bobbyp): Oh yes, I didn't mean to imply for a moment that the sons are in any way morally superior to their appalling father. I have no reason to think so, but they are young, and more in touch with modern mores and what will eventually cause trouble than he is, that's all.

And I'm that I haven't used the word in the past year, though while we're at it: yes the US Dems have swallowed neoliberal policy just as New Labour did - there has been a bit of a backlash since 2008/11 as it doesn't really work, but the central assumptions still seem to be taken as god given.

Looks to me like the term 'neoliberalism' shifted in meaning from mitigated to radicalised Manchesterism during the Thatcher/Reagan era by getting Pinochetised.
In a way like the movement of meaning from democracy to people's democracy or republican to Republican.

No, it's easier than that, "neoliberalism" is intimately connected as an extension, whether rigorous or loose, of "liberalism," and just as liberalism was found to implicate and necessitate certain rights beyond contractural and property rights, so neoliberalism has been understood to go further than Hayek-Friedman market libertarianism. The Hayek-Friedman paradigm always also already included an ontology, theory of human nature, etc and most of us agree with large parts of in application while being contradictory in theory.

1) Favoring individual rights over the collective power
2) Thinking those rights are universal
3) Thinking individuals and societies can be improved, by for instance the extension of 1 and 2 to previously excluded groups

A very important part of classical liberalism was its meta-political, statist, anti-democratic nature, that rights in 1) like freedom of religion, contract, marriage were either not subject to democratic control or should be made very difficult to abrogate, as in super-majorities and constitutions and bills of rights.

This has its recent extension in things like the WTO, TPP, ECHR and other extranational institutions that diminish local and national sovereignties.

In the last couple generations, following Foucault and Regulation School etc it has come to be understood that just as Marx analyzed capitalist liberalism, neoliberalism requires the creation/ideologization of a neoliberal subject/body, a way of thinking and being that is compatible with for instance capitalist cosmopolitanism.

I see neoliberism as a word and explanatory concept used every day, over at Jacobin and Counterpunch. Macron in France is perfect Blair clone. The problem with the word came up in the LGM-Balloon Juice-and apparently here where the neoliberalism was too uncomfortably apt as a description of "60 million payoff in one day - between pitchforks and the banks for the banks selling mortgagers out to finance" but oh so socially progressive demigod Obama that it was decided "neoliberal" had to be racist or sexist or sumpin.

but oh so socially progressive demigod Obama that it was decided "neoliberal" had to be racist or sexist or sumpin

If you argue that neoliberalism is an all-encompassing system that is able to take advantage of our basic desires and identities is order to make it difficult to attack and uproot (something I agree with), it seems a bit churlish to complain that Barry the black guy was not able to confront it and solve all our problems with it.

extranational institutions that diminish local and national sovereignties

This is something that should go in the other thread, but I'd argue that those local and national sovereignties are things that ran amok when the Germans (contra Spicer) gassed their own citizens, after making sure that they had legally stripped them of their rights. And this wasn't a German idea, they got it from the French (cf Noyades de Nantes). There is a balance here, and just arguing local/national jurisdictions good/international bad can put you in as bad a spot as the alternative.

"The problem with the word came up in the LGM-Balloon Juice-and apparently here where the neoliberalism was too uncomfortably apt as a description of "60 million payoff in one day - between pitchforks and the banks for the banks selling mortgagers out to finance" but oh so socially progressive demigod Obama that it was decided "neoliberal" had to be racist or sexist or sumpin."

That sounds about right. I've been seeing people on the left complain about the Washington Consensus and neoliberalism in the sense I mentioned above since the 90's. It was part of the movement back then questioning globalization as it was being pushed forward via "free trade" agreements. (Ask Dean Baker what he thinks about the hypocritical misuses of free trade theory.) Thomas Frank wrote some book about Friedman and others back then. I have it somewhere at home. He wasn't the only one. I don't want to repeat my other comment, so I won't, but this isn't just something people on the left suddenly started talking about just to annoy the Democratic Party apparatus. Friedman really was treated as though he was a serious thinker and he really did glorify markets and "free trade agreements" and criticize unions and speak glowingly about the Golden Straitjacket and dagnabbit, I am repeating myself. That was neoliberalism. Then last year, during the primaries, all of a sudden neoliberalism became some mysterious catch all category which nobody could define, but it was a swear word used by the dirty fornicating hippies to smear their betters. Or something. I even saw Fred Clark at slacktivist complaining about it. Fred mostly spends his time bashing the evangelicals (where he does know a lot regarding where the ideological and theological bodies are buried), so when he is complaining about the horrible misuse of the "neoliberal" word then it has become a thing to do.

The Crooked Timber crowd said it might have a different sense in Europe. I wouldn't know.

"Neoliberalism" has become an epithet, used by "true progressives," whose candidate (running as a Democrat) floated intriguing and attractive programs which he couldn't support with actual numbers. People who put forth policies that could be supported, not only by numbers but by voters, were vilified as "neoliberals".

People who complain about today's "neoliberals" should talk about policies that they dislike, and explain why someone (such as, say, a socialist candidate) can't get elected to do better.

D.J.:Then last year, during the primaries, all of a sudden neoliberalism became some mysterious catch all category which nobody could define, but it was a swear word used by the dirty fornicating hippies to smear their betters.

exactly. LGM & BJ are making fun of that phenomenon.

the leftier-than-thou types learned a new word and threw it at everything that wasn't exactly the right kind of lefty for them. still are.

b.m.:it was decided "neoliberal" had to be racist or sexist or sumpin."

Fool me once, Bob. I'm not going to leap up and apologize this time, I was pretty clear that I was talking about the topic, not about you, so if you don't like it, the exit is clearly marked. Like your thought about people who complain too loudly about neoliberalism, one can adduce a lot of things from people being oversensitive.

At any rate, using neoliberalism as an attempt to try and wrap up all the bad things in the modern world and pretend that they aren't entwined with everything else in the world is not going to get you very far, unless you are willing to give up pretty much everything you like, (or say you don't, as the case may be). I don't know if it is just me, but when someone complains about how 'local and national sovereignties' are being diminished, I hear it in a voice that sounds not only like Trump and May, but a lot of voices here in Japan.

About Obama on the yacht, yeah, it bothers me a bit, but given the shit he got for 8 years and how I'm not sure if there is anything he could do in the current situation, I'm not expecting him to be in a sackcloth and ashes. He and Michelle going backpacking and staying in a youth hostel is a nice fantasy, but in no way indicative of reality.

"This has its recent extension in things like the WTO, TPP, ECHR and other extranational institutions that diminish local and national sovereignties."

You invented any "complaining" cause it isn't in the text. Whether or not I approve of diminished sovereignty depends mostly on the issues, skeptical of TPP but do you really think I oppose the ECHR? As long as it isn't ruled by Goldman-Sachs, I am mostly an open borders to no borders guy. I loathe nationalism and patriotism to the point I don't listen to the English language anymore. Never heard a speech by Obama, Clinton, Sanders, or Trump.

Read it again, I try to keep normative judgements out of my political analysis, with the exception of hating rich f&&ks and their lackeys.

People who complain about today's "neoliberals" should talk about policies that they dislike

We do so. We do it here. All. The. Time. Are you not 'efffing paying attention?

...and explain why someone (such as, say, a socialist candidate) can't get elected to do better.

Fair question. Long answer. Short story short, we don't have enough support for our proposed policies. Now your turn. Perhaps you might explain the near total decimation of the Democratic Party at all offices below that of the Presidency? You gonna' blame that on "holier than thou" lefties as well?

You are not being serious.

I would posit that the "left" (everybody from Joe Lieberman to almost the (real) Communist Party suffer from (a.) Not having an ideologically coherent policy framework; (b.) A near total absence of real salesmanship tied to an internally consistent ideology; and (c.) suffer from being at the wrong end of the political advantages wrought by the conservative movement (and their neoliberal lackeys--sorry, could not resist ::::)))- tax cuts that concentrate wealth - that concentrate power - that in turn concentrate more wealth - rinse & repeat, and we wind up with gerrymanders, disparities in political resources, voter suppression, yadda' yadda'.

The Crooked Timber crowd said it might have a different sense in Europe

I gather it is because "liberals" of the European stripe identify themselves with classical 19th century liberalism (more or less absolute individual 'natural' rights, private property, and classical free market economics). U.S. glibertarians call themselves the 'real' liberals.

Perhaps you might explain the near total decimation of the Democratic Party at all offices below that of the Presidency? You gonna' blame that on "holier than thou" lefties as well?

Who're you going to blame it on? Deborah Wasserman Schultz? I blame it on many people throwing stones at the Democratic Party without actually taking some responsibility for the "leftier" party. Also, the fact that Republican money worked to disenfranchise democrats at many levels, and that the Republican base is hypermotivated by resentment and hate.

Democrats have had extraordinarily successful, fact-based programs. Their own base does nothing but run them down, and say they're not good enough. The comments on this blog throughout the Obama administration was all about that. Republicans support their people and vote. Yes, its mindless, against their own interests and has nothing to do with policy or bettering the country, but at least they freaking vote for their people.

Yes, keep blaming "neolibs" whoever they are, those people that you have to hold your nose for, those people who do all the freaking policy work.

(b.) A near total absence of real salesmanship tied to an internally consistent ideology;

Part of the problem here is that we (liberals, or "the left") are not doing that job for our party. We have to be the salesmen for our policies, and we're bad at it. It's not just our politicians who are bad at it - we are.

Actually, Cleek, I was trying to make fun of the LGM people. They are interesting except when it comes to defending people who criticize Democrats. Sometimes they criticize the Democrats themselves, but don't seem to have much tolerance for others doing it. It is a fine line they draw.

But the point I am trying to make is that in the 90's and maybe before, there was a group sometimes called neoliberals and sometimes called a Third Way which was supposed to represent a new smart sophisticated liberalism that could beat the Republicans. The key was accepting the free market and ditching the old borderline socialist New Deal notions on economics while still being liberal on social and ( sometimes) environmental issues. There would be a safety net, but it had to be "reformed". Bill Clinton was seen as the champion of this new movement and I gather Tony Blair played the same role in GB.

People who supported Sanders saw him as the champion of the old fashioned sort of New Deal Democratic idealism -- defenders of Clinton said this was unfair. The LGM bloggers who are on the left end of the Democratic Party argued that the pressure from the left had moved Hillary leftwards. Others, like Susan Bordo ( I think) profess not to understand how anyone could have ever had the idea there was any ideological conflict going on at all and so it was just young people being misled, plus sexism and so forth. It was like the 90's had never happened, that Third Wayism never existed, etc...

It was like the 90's had never happened, that Third Wayism never existed, etc...

People who remember the '90's so well seem to have forgotten about the '80's. And Newt Gingrich's 1994 win. There was an actual reason that Democrats were trying other rhetoric to get elected. They wanted to win. They did not abandon the New Deal. They did not abandon the poor. They did not abandon civil rights. They made some compromises so that those things would not disappear. (Those things might disappear now, during Trump / McConnell / Ryan though, because Clinton is a neoliberal!)

I have to say, this is disturbing, although it has the potential to be catastrophically ruinous for the Trump administration should they go forward.

Federal prosecutors are weighing whether to bring criminal charges against members of the WikiLeaks organization, taking a second look at a 2010 leak of diplomatic cables and military documents and investigating whether the group bears criminal responsibility for the more recent revelation of sensitive CIA cyber-tools, according to people familiar with the case.

the gist of it, as I see it, is that really rich people are fucking it up for everyone else.

apply whatever labels float your boat.

as an aside, in one of life's little ironies, I had to go piss in a cup today. work related thing, the company got sold so we all have to jump through the requisite hoops like trained monkeys. whatever, it's a gig.

but note the date.

it gave me a laugh, anyway.

we've lost the plot. maybe the fever will break, maybe it won't. we'll do what we can with what's left, whenever we snap out of it. assuming we do.

But they're just so darned popular. I doubt most people even consider how artificial these ways of thinking are. It just comes so naturally. How can you even question such things?

(Of course, nationalism and patriotism in others - from other nations - is usually not even recongnized as such, at least not when it pits them against "us." Then it's just evil, radical, and even sort of uppity.)

russell -- Here's an aspirational poem to counter pissing in a cup day. Easy for me to say, since I'm so close to retirement I can taste it (and long past eligible for SS), but that would be the last straw for me in the already frustrating context of increasing corporatization at my workplace (also recently sold).

Usually, when people loose an election, they do some soul searching to figure out what went wrong... here it's more like: blame the lefties 24/7

Which is ridiculous in this context since AFAIK the few lefties here either voted Democrat anyway, e.g. Donald, or, in my case, couldn't vote at all. More importantly, alienating and even insulting young voters, "Millennials", and other potential allies doesn't seem to be a very wise strategy going forward.

Mostly, I should probably lay off posting when I'm profoundly annoyed.

I do appreciate the assumption that there are things that are not worthy of me! :)

Is that to test your aim ?

LOL.

Not directly, but in a sense, yes.

What I will say is that if you were to imagine life on earth as a form of hell, and also imagine that there were circles and degrees and varying depths of hell, going to work every day as a piss Nazi in a crappy little strip mall office somewhere is probably fairly close to the bottom.

"Lock your belongings in that little box"
"Wash your hands - NO NO NO DON'T USE SOAP!!"
"Fill this enough to cover the little thermometer"

(I guess the thermometer is to make sure it's body temperature, and not somebody else's pee that's been sitting in the car for an hour)

"Finish up in the toilet, but don't flush, we are going to turn the water off"

Then transfer some random stranger's urine into a vial, seal it up and bag it, do a bunch of niggling legalistic paperwork, have a quick Purel hand-wash and change your rubber gloves, and on to the next.

Probably 50 or so times a day. Shoot me now.

But, somebody's gotta do it, apparently, and everybody's gotta eat. I'm sure I'd do it if I needed work, although on the whole I'd rather be a janitor.

If you name is Trump, or you are married to someone whose name is Trump, you're good.

Except if the guy named Trump that you're married to is DJT. At which point it's once again "what have you done for me lately?" Not to mention "Have I met someone new whose attentions flatter my fragile male ego?"

Not to downplay the potential of his roving eye/hands at all, but apparently his hair-conserving medications (as revealed by his strange doc) affect male potency, so there's that. And I suppose even if impotent, he would still be (maybe even more) super-susceptible to flattery.

Re GftNC on hair and potency: if that's true, and he chose hair over potency ... wow.

Not the choice I'd make! ;-)

More seriously, it raises fascinating questions about vanity. If he's vain about his looks, but he's also vain about his sexual prowess (there's ample evidence for that, ask Billy Bush), how to choose? I guess when you're all about ratings, you go for the publicly visible one.

on hair and potency: if that's true, and he chose hair over potency ... wow.

Not the choice I'd make! ;-)

But we're talking about a guy who's all about perception over substance. So, if you think about it, it's exactly the choice that you'd expect him to make:
Looking good is important to him. Being good? Not so much.

Nigel, for all the issues that are noted in your linked article, you need to keep one thing in mind. While support for capital punishment is dropping in the US, it still has far more support that you see in the UK. Which is to say, Gorsuch's position is not as far out of the mainstream on this as it may prove to be on other issues.

wj, understood, even if deplored. But given what sound like appalling miscarriages of justice on several fronts (refusal of DNA tests, drunk defence lawyer etc) this is particularly egregious, even if one does not rule out the death penalty on principle. I'm assuming that people at the level of SCOTUS justices still think that people to be put to death must be guilty beyond reasonable doubt? Or have I missed some legal wrinkle which means SCOTUS justices don't consider the path to judgement? (I'm drunk, so if I have missed something, sorry).